SKms 

.9.H91 


“irS? 


William  Penn’s  Plan  for  a 
League  of  Nations 


Essay  towards  the  Present 
and  Future  Peace  of  Europe^ 
by  the  Establishment  of  an 
European  E)yet^  Parliament, 
or  Estates P 

Beati  Pacifici  Cedant  Arma  Togae 

First  published,  anonymously,  [in  London], 
December,  1693 

The  second  edition  published  in  London, 
early  in  1694 


Abridged,  Edited  and  Annotated 

BY 

William  I.  Hull 


Bulletin  No.  20 

The  American  Friends’  Service  Committee 

Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania 

iQig 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/williampennsplanOOhull 


PENN’S  famous  Essay  begins  with  the  following  modest 
apology: 

“To  THE  Reader: 

I have  undertaken  a Subject  that  I am  very  sensible  requires 
one  of  more  Sufficiency  than  I am  Master  of  to  treat  it,  as  in 
Truth,  it  deserves,  and  the  growing  State  of  Europe  calls  for; 
but  since  Bunglers  may  Stumble  upon  the  Game,  as  well  as  Mas- 
ters, though  it  belongs  to  the  Skilful  to  hunt  and  catch  it,  I hope 
this  Essay  will  not  be  charged  upon  me  for  a Fault,  if  it  appear 
to  be  neither  Chimerical  nor  Injurious,  and  may  provoke 
abler  Pens  to  improve  and  perform  the  Design  with  better  Judg- 
ment and  Success.  I will  say  no  more  in  Excuse  of  myself,  for 
this  Undertaking,  but  that  it  is  the  Fruit  of  my  solicitous 
Thoughts,  for  the  Peace  of  Europe,  and  they  must  want  Charity 
as  much  as  the  World  needs  Quiet,  to  be  offended  with  me  for  so 
Pacifick  a Proposal.  Let  them  censure  my  Management,  so  they 
prosecute  the  Advantage  of  the  Design ; for,  till  the  Millenary 
Doctrine  be  accomplished,  there  is  nothing  appears  to  me  so 
beneficial  and  Expedient  to  the  Peace  and  Happiness  of  this 
Quarter  of  the  World.” 

The  plan  thus  quaintly  launched  two  centuries  and  a quarter 
ago  has  never  been  lost  sight  of  by  the  thinkers  and  seers  of  suc- 
cessive generations.  It  has  formed  one  of  those  stepping-stones 
across  the  centuries,  like  the  prophecies  and  plans  of  Isaiah  and 
Micah,  Henry  IV  and  Emeric  Cruce,  upon  which  the  minds  of 
men  have  strode  onward  toward  the  establishment,  on  solid 
ground,  of  a just  and  peaceful  settlement  of  disputes  between  and 
among  nations.  One  century  after  its  publication  the  American 
Union  began  its  experiment  in  federal  government,  judicial 
settlement,  and  the  limitation  of  armaments.  At  the  end  of  an- 
other century,  the  Hague  Conferences  began  a similar  experi- 
ment; and  to-day  the  nations  have  met  in  the  great  conference 
at  Paris,  to  enter  upon  the  great  task  of  establishing  a League  of 
Nations,  with  the  beneficent  functions  of  judicial  settlement, 
limitation  of  armaments,  and  an  officially  organized  interna- 
tional co-operation  in  some  vitally  important  spheres  of  human 
endeavor. 


5 


Under  these  circumstances  of  historic  interest  and  present 
crisis,  it  appears  appropriate  to  issue  another  edition  of  Penn’s 
famous  Essay,  this  time  abridged,  modernized,  and  supplied 
with  notes  applying  its  proposals  to  the  concrete  problems  of  our 
time.  It  is  the  fervent  hope  of  the  editor  of  this  edition,  and  of 
those  who  have  sponsored  its  publication,  that  it  may  serve,  even 
though  in  slight  and  modest  measure,  to  clarify  the  problems 
which  confront  the  world  to-day,  and  to  secure  for  their  solu- 
tion the  application  of  those  eternal  principles  of  right  and 
justice  which  inspired  the  soul  of  the  Quaker  author  and  states- 
man. 

The  Essay  is  divided  into  ten  “Sections”  and  a “Conclu- 
sion” ; the  topics  discussed  in  these  sections  may  be  classified  as 
follows:  I.  The  Evils  of  War,  and  the  Benefits  of  Peace  (Sec- 
tion I)  ; II.  The  Causes  of  War,  and  Justice  as  the  Means  of  its 
Prevention  (Sections  II,  V,  VI)  ; III.  The  Origin  of  Govern- 
ment, and  Justice  as  its  Function  (Section  III)  ; IV.  The 
League  of  Nations  (Sections  IV,  VII,  VIII)  ; V.  Objections  to 
the  League  of  Nations  (Section  IX)  ; VI.  Benefits  of  the  League 
of  Nations  (Section  X)  ; VII.  The  Argument  from  Experience 
and  Reason  (Conclusion). 

I.  The  Evils  of  War,  and  the  Benefits  of  Peace 

The  terrible  mortality  and  the  heavy  economic  burdens  of 
the  present  war^  illustrate  the  inevitable  evils  of  war.  Peace, 
on  the  contrary,  insures  the  possession  of  property,  foreign  com- 
merce, domestic  industry,  philanthropy,  and  public  and  private 
tranquillity.  War,  like  the  frost  of  1683,  seizes  all  these  com- 
forts at  once,  and  stops  the  civil  channel  of  society.  What  the 
peace  gave,  the  war  devours. 

II.  The  Causes  of  War,  and  Justice  as  the  Means  of  its 

Prevention 

Most  wars  are  due  to  wrongs  received  or  to  rights  refused. 
Hence  Justice  is  the  best  means  of  preventing  wars,  both  at  home 
and  abroad. 


6 


Wars  of  aggression  are  due  to  ambition  and  the  pride  of 
conquest;  but  such  wars  are  relatively  few  in  history.  As  Levi- 
athans appear  rarely  in  the  world ; considering  how  few  there  are 
of  those  Sons  of  Prey,  and  how  early  [seldom?]  they  show  them- 
selves,— it  may  be  not  once  in  an  Age  or  two:  the  League  of 
Nations,  when  established,  will  prove  an  impassable  limit  to 
their  ambition. 

Wars  of  defense  and  offense  are  for  the  purpose  of  keeping 
or  recovering  national  rights.  These  rights  can  best  be  defined, 
and  defended  or  bestowed,  by  the  League  of  Nations.  For  each 
nation  to  be  judge  and  executioner  in  its  own  cause  means  in- 
justice and  war.® 

III.  The  Origin  of  Government,  and  Justice  as  its  Func- 
tion 

Governments  arose  when  men,  desirous  of  peace  and  justice, 
formed  a political  society  and  imposed  obligations  upon  them- 
selves, thereby  surrendering  their  right  of  acting  as  judge  in  their 
own  cause  and  as  avenger  of  their  own  wrong. 

The  most  natural  and  human  government  is  that  which 
governs  by  consent;  for  that  binds  freely,  as  when  men  hold  their 
liberty  by  true  obedience  to  rules  of  their  own  making.® 

The  end  of  government  is  the  prevention  or  cure  of  dis- 
order; hence  it  is  the  means  of  justice,  as  justice  is  of  peace.^ 

IV.  The  League  of  Nations 

I.  A Society  of  Nations  and  International  Government 

The  sovereign  princes  of  Europe,  if  they  truly  love  peace 
and  justice,  should  follow  the  precedent  of  peace-loving  men 
and  form  a Society  of  Nations.  This  society  should  then  impose 
obligations  upon  itself  and  its  members  by  means  of  an  inter- 
national government.® 

2.  The  International  Parliament 

The  rules  of  justice  to  be  observed  by  the  sovereign  princes 
one  to  another  are  to  be  established  by  deputies  in  a General 
Dyet,  Estates,  or  Parliament,  to  be  called  The  Sovereign  or 
Imperial  Dyet,  Parliament,  or  State,  of  Europe.^ 


7 


a.  Representation 

The  number  of  deputies  appointed  by  each  sovereign  shall 
be  proportional  to  “the  yearly  value  of  the  sovereign  countries.” 
This  yearly  value  should  be  based  on  the  revenue  of  lands,  the 
exports  and  imports,  the  records  of  taxes  and  assessments  com- 
piled in  each  country. 

As  a crude  and  tentative  plan,  the  following  table  of  repre- 
sentation is  suggested: 

The  Empire  of  Germany  [The  Holy  Roman 


Empire]  12  delegates 

France 10  “ 

Spain  10  “ 

Italy  (“which  comes  to  France”)  8 “ 

England  6 “ 

Portugal 3 “ 

Sweden  (“Sweedland”)  4 “ 

Denmark  3 “ 

Poland  4 “ 

Venice 3 “ 

The  Seven  Provinces  [Holland] 4 “ 

The  Thirteen  Cantons  and  “little  Neigh- 
bouring Soveraignties”  [Switzerland]  2 “ 

Dukedoms  of  Holstein  and  Courland 1 “ 

Turkey 10  “ 

Muscovites  [Russia] 10  “ 


Total,  15  Sovereignties 90  delegates 


Such  an  assembly  would  constitute  a great  presence,  since 
it  represents  a fourth,  and  now  the  best  and  wealthiest  part  of  the 
known  world,  where  religion  and  learning,  civility  and  arts  have 
their  seat  and  empire.^ 


b.  The  Vote 

The  vote  in  the  parliament,  like  the  number  of  delegates, 
would  allow  for  the  inequality  of  states.®  But  the  votes  assigned 
to  any  sovereignty  may  be  cast  by  one  delegate,  as  well  as  by  ten 
or  twelve.  Hence  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  maintain  a full 


8 


representation ; although  the  fuller  the  assembly  of  states  is,  the 
more  solemn,  effectual,  and  free  the  debates  will  be,  and  the  reso- 
lutions must  needs  come  with  greater  authority. 

Nothing  in  this  Imperial  Parliament  should  pass,  but  “by 
three  quarters  of  the  whole,  at  least  seven  above  the  bal- 
ance.”® This  would  help  to  prevent  treachery;  because  if  money 
could  ever  be  a temptation  in  such  a court,  it  would  cost  a great 
deal  of  money  to  weigh  down  the  wrong  scale. 

If  any  difference  can  arise  among  those  delegates  who  repre- 
sent the  same  sovereignty,  then  one  of  the  majority  should  cast 
all  the  votes  assigned  to  that  sovereignty.^® 

The  continuous  representation  of  every  sovereignty  should 
be  secured  under  heavy  penalties,  and  no  delegation  should  with- 
draw from  the  sessions  without  permission,  until  all  the  business 
is  finished.” 


c.  Minor  Regulations 

The  parliament  should  meet  yearly,  or  once  in  two  or  three 
years  at  farthest,  or  as  occasion  demands.” 

The  meeting-place  of  the  parliament,  for  its  first  session, 
should  be  as  central  as  possible;  the  subsequent  place  or  places 
should  be  agreed  upon  by  the  parliament  itself.^^ 

The  language  used  should  be  Latin  or  French;  the  former 
would  suit  civilians,  the  latter  would  be  easier  for  men  of 
quality.” 

To  avoid  quarrel  for  precedency,  the  assembly  hall  may  be 
round,  and  have  numerous  doors  for  entrance  and  exit.  The 
delegates  could  be  divided  into  groups  of  ten,  and  each  group 
could  select  one  of  its  members  to  preside  over  the  assembly  in 
turn.” 

All  speeches  should  be  addressed  to  the  presiding  officer, 
who  should  state  the  question  for  debate  and  vote.” 

The  vote  should  be  taken  by  ballot,  after  the  prudent  and 
commendable  method  of  the  Venetians.  This  would  prevent,  in 
great  degree,  the  ill  effects  of  corruption ; because  if  any  of  the 
delegates  of  that  high  and  mighty  estates  could  be  so  vile,  false 
and  dishonorable  as  to  be  influenced  by  money,  they  have  the 
advantage  of  taking  money  from  those  that  will  give  it,  and  then 
of  voting  undiscovered  to  the  interest  of  their  principals  and 


9 


according  to  their  own  inclinations:  A shrewd  stratagem,  and 
an  experimental  remedy  against  corruption,  at  least  against  cor- 
rupting; for  who  will  give  their  money  where  they  may  so  easily 
be  cozened,  and  where  it  is  two  to  one  they  will  be  cheated,  since 
they  that  will  take  money  in  such  cases,  will  not  stick  to  lie 
heartily  to  them  that  give  it,  rather  than  wrong  their  country, 
when  they  know  their  lie  cannot  be  detected/’^ 

Freedom  of  speech  and  rules  regulating  its  parliamentary 
usage  should  be  fully  entrusted  to  the  delegates,  who  will  be 
chosen  by  each  sovereignty  from  the  wisest  and  noblest  of  its  own 
citizens,  for  the  sake  of  its  own  honor  and  safety.^® 

Neutralities  in  debates  should  by  no  means  be  endured;  for 
any  such  latitude  would  quickly  open  a way  to  unfair  proceed- 
ings, and  be  followed  by  a train  both  of  seen  and  unseen  incon- 
veniences.^® 

Each  group  of  ten  delegates  should  appoint  a clerk,  and 
these  clerks  should  attend  every  session  of  the  parliament  and 
keep  a journal  of  the  proceedings.  At  the  end  of  each  session, 
one  member  of  each  group  of  ten  should  be  appointed  to  examine 
and  compare  the  journals  kept  by  the  clerks,  and  lock  them  up 
in  a trunk  or  chest,  for  which  there  should  be  as  many  different 
locks  and  keys  as  there  are  groups  of  ten.®® 

Each  sovereignty  may  demand  a copy  of  the  memorials 
presented  to  the  parliament,  and  a copy  of  the  journal  of  pro- 
ceedings. 

J.  The  International  Court  and  Councils  of  Conciliation 

All  differences  pending  between  one  sovereignty  and  an- 
other, which  cannot  be  made  up  by  “private  embassies,”®^  should 
be  brought  before  the  international  parliament,  before  a session 
begins.®®  All  complaints  should  be  delivered  in  writing,  in  the 
form  of  memorials. 

4.  The  International  Sanction 

If  any  of  the  sovereignties  that  constitute  the  Imperial  Diet 
shall  refuse  to  submit  their  claim  or  pretensions  to  it,  or  to  abide 
and  perform  the  judgment  thereof,  and  seek  their  remedy  by 
arms,  or  delay  their  compliance  beyond  the  time  prescribed  in 


10 


the  decision,  all  the  other  sovereignties,  united  as  one  strength, 
shall  compel  the  submission  and  performance  of  the  sentence, 
with  damages  to  the  suffering  party,  and  charges  to  the  sover- 
eignties that  obliged  their  submission.^® 

No  sovereignty  in  Europe  would  have  the  power,  and  there- 
fore could  not  show  the  will  to  dispute  the  conclusion.  The 
strongest  and  richest  sovereignty  is  not  stronger  and  richer  than 
all  the  rest.®^ 

5.  The  Reduction  and  Limitation  of  Armaments 

With  judicial  settlement  established,  no  sovereignty  would 
have  more  occasion  for  war  than  any  other.  Nor  is  it  to  be 
thought  that  any  one  will  keep  up  such  an  army,  after  the  league 
is  on  foot,  as  would  hazard  the  safety  of  the  others.  However, 
if  it  be  found  needful,  the  question  may  be  asked,  by  order  of 
the  Sovereign  States,  why  such  an  one  either  raises  or  keeps 
up  a formidable  body  of  troops,  and  he  be  obliged  forthwith  to 
reduce  them : lest  any  one,  by  keeping  up  a great  body  of  troops, 
should  surprize  a neighbor.  But  only  a small  force  in  every 
other  sovereignty,  such  as  it  is  capable  or  accustomed  to  main- 
tain, will  certainly  prevent  that  danger  and  vanquish  any  such 
fear.®® 


V.  Objections  to  the  League  of  Nations 

First,  it  is  objected  that  bribery  will  take  the  place  of  force. 
But  bribery  is  as  easy,  or  easier,  now  as  it  would  be  within  a 
league.  The  national  delegates  would  naturally  be  men  of  sense, 
honor  and  substance ; they  would  watch  each  other,  and  one  be 
a check  upon  another;  and  they  would  be  prudently  limited  by 
their  respective  governments,  to  which,  in  all  important  ques- 
tions, they  would  be  obliged  to  refer  for  specific  instructions. 

Second,  the  trade  of  soldiery  would  suffer  from  disuse,  and 
this  would  cause  effeminacy.  But  a truly  civilized  state  requires 
its  men  to  be  men,  and  neither  women  nor  lions.  Each  state  may 
introduce  among  its  citizens  as  temperate  or  as  severe  a discipline 
as  it  pleases,  in  order  to  save  them  from  both  extremes.  Plain 
living,  proper  labor,  education  in  rnechanics,  physical  science 
and  politics,  would  fit  a youth  to  become  useful  in  the  public 


11 


service  at  home  or  abroad,  or  at  least  make  of  him  a good  com- 
monwealth’s man,  useful  in  public  or  in  private  life  as  occasion 
may  require. 

Third,  the  younger  sons  of  good  families  would  be  unable 
to  find  employment  as  officers  and,  if  poor,  would  be  obliged  to 
become  common  soldiers  or  thieves.  But  if  the  training  men- 
tioned in  reply  to  the  second  objection  be  given,  we  shall  have 
the  more  merchants  and  husbandmen,  or  ingenious  naturalists. 

Fourth,  sovereign  princes  and  states  would  lose  their  sov- 
ereignty, and  to  this  they  would  never  consent.^®  But  this  also 
is  a mistake ; for  they  would  remain  as  sovereign  at  home  as  ever 
they  were:  neither  their  power  over  their  people,  nor  the  usual 
revenue  they  receive  would  be  diminished.  The  sovereignties 
would  remain  as  they  are,  in  relation  to  one  another,  for  none 
of  them  would  have  any  sovereignty  over  another.  Their  war 
establishments  would  be  reduced,  or  better  employed  to  the  pub- 
lic advantage.  And  if  this  be  called  a lessening  of  their  power, 
it  must  be  only  because  the  great  fish  can  no  longer  eat  up  the 
little  ones ; for  each  sovereignty  would  be  equally  defended  from 
injuries  and  disabled  from  committing  them.  Cedant  arma 
togae  is  a glorious  sentence. 

VI.  Benefits  of  the  League  of  Nations 

First:  Let  it  not  be  considered  the  least  benefit  that  the 
league  would  prevent  the  spilling  of  so  much  human  blood : for  a 
thing  so  offensive  to  God,  and  terrible  and  afflicting  to  men,  must 
recommend  our  expedient  beyond  all  objections.  Although 
the  chief  men  in  government  positions  are  seldom  personally 
exposed  in  v/ar,  yet  it  is  a duty  incumbent  upon  them  to  be  tender 
of  the  lives  of  their  people;  since,  without  all  doubt,  they  are 
accountable  to  God  for  the  blood  that  is  spilt  in  their  service. 
Besides  the  loss  of  so  many  lives,  of  importance  to  any  nation 
both  for  labor  and  propagation,  the  cries  of  so  many  widows, 
parents  and  fatherless,  would  be  prevented. 

Second,  by  means  of  this  peaceable  expedient  the  reputation 
of  Christianity  would  in  some  degree  be  recovered.  Christians 
have  warred  with  non-Christians,  and  with  other  Christians; 
the  same  kinds  of  Christians  have  fought  with  one  another: 


12 


at  the  same  time,  invoking  and  interesting,  all  they  could,  the 
good  and  merciful  God  to  prosper  their  arms  to  their  brethren’s 
destruction.  Yet  their  Savior  has  told  them  that  he  came  to 
save  and  not  to  destroy  the  lives  of  men,  to  give  and  plant  peace 
among  men ; and  if  in  any  sense  he  may  be  said  to  send  war,  it 
is  the  Holy  War  indeed,  for  it  is  against  the  Devil,  and  not 
against  the  persons  of  men.  Here  is  a wide  field  for  service  on 
the  part  of  the  reverend  clergy  of  Europe,  who  have  so  much  the 
possession  of  princes  and  people  too.  May  they  recommend  and 
labor  this  pacific  means  I ofifer,  which  will  end  bloodshed,  if 
not  strife ; and  then  reason,  founded  upon  free  debate,  and  not 
the  sword,  will  be  judge,  and  both  justice  and  peace  will  result. 

Third:  Money  would  be  saved  both  to  governments  and 
people,  and  popular  discontent  which  follows  the  devouring 
expenses  of  war  would  be  prevented.  Both  governments  and 
people  would  be  enabled  to  expend  larger  sums  upon  learning, 
charity,  industry,  and  other  things  which  are  the  virtue  of  gov- 
ernments and  the  ornaments  of  nations. 

Fourth:  Towns,  cities  and  countries  laid  waste  by  war 
would  be  preserved.  What  this  would  mean,  let  Flanders, 
Hungary,  and  the  borders  of  England  and  Scotland  answer! 

Fifth:  It  would  make  easy  and  secure  both  travel  and  trade, 
which  has  never  been  fully  realized  since  the  Roman  Empire 
was  broken  into  so  many  sovereignties.  A passport  issued  by 
any  member  of  the  league  would  be  honored  by  all  the  other 
states,  and  it  could  be  used  in  peace  as  it  cannot  be  in  war.  This 
would  lead  to  the  benefit  of  a world-monarchy,  without  the  dis- 
advantages that  attend  it:  to  the  peace  and  security  which  alone 
could  render  a universal  monarchy  desirable. 

Sixth:  It  would  secure  Christian  Europe  against  the  inroads 
of  the  Turks.  For  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  Porte  to 
have  prevailed  so  often  and  so  far  upon  Christendom,  except 
for  the  indifference  or  wilful  connivance,  if  not  aid,  of  some 
Christian  princes.  For  the  same  reason  that  no  Christian  mon- 
arch would  venture  to  oppose  or  break  such  a league,  the  Sultan 
will  find  himself  obliged  to  concur, — if  he  desires  to  secure  that 
which  he  holds  in  Europe;  for,  with  all  his  strength,  he  would 
feel  the  league  an  over-match  for  him. 


13 


Seventh:  The  league  would  beget  and  increase  personal 
friendship  between  governments  and  peoples,  which  would  itself 
tend  to  prevent  war  and  to  plant  peace  in  a deep  and  fruitful  soil. 
The  tranquillity  of  the  world  would  be  greatly  promoted  if 
rulers  could  freely  converse  face  to  face  and  personally  and  re- 
ciprocally give  and  receive  marks  of  civility  and  kindness.  Inter- 
national emulation  would  then  consist  in  such  things  as  goodness, 
laws,  customs,  learning,  arts,  buildings,  and  particularly  those 
that  relate  to  charity.®^ 

VII.  The  Argument  from  Experience  and  Reason 

Sir  William  Temple’s  “Account  of  the  United  Provinces” 
supplies  an  experimental  illustration  of  this  plan  for  a league  of 
nations,  and  an  experiment  which  not  only  answers  all  the  objec- 
tions advanced  against  the  practicability  of  the  league,  but  which 
also  overcomes  greater  difficulties  than  the  league  would  en- 
counter. For,  in  the  States  General  of  the  Netherlands,  there 
are  represented  three  degrees  of  sovereignty,  namely,  that  of  the 
States  General  itself,  that  of  the  Provinces,  and  that  of  the  vari- 
ous cities.^® 

A plan  for  a political  balance  of  Europe,  somewhat  similar 
to  the  above  in  design  and  preparation,  was  due  to  the  wisdom, 
justice  and  valor  of  Henry  the  Fourth,  of  France,  whose  superior 
qualities,  raising  his  character  above  those  of  his  ancestors  or 
contemporaries,  deservedly  gave  him  the  title  of  Henry  the 
Great. 

I will  not  fear,  then,  to  be  censured  for  proposing  an  Expedi- 
ent for  the  Present  and  Future  Peace  of  Europe,  since  it  was 
not  only  the  design,  but  the  glory,  of  one  of  the  greatest  of 
- European  princes,  and  is  found  practicable  in  the  constitution 
of  one  of  Europe’s  wisest  and  most  powerful  states.  This  great 
king’s  example  tells  us  it  is  fit  to  be  done ; Sir  William  Temple’s 
, “History”  shows  us,  by  a surpassing  instance,  that  it  may  be  done ; 
and  Europe,  by  her  incomparable  miseries,  makes  it  now  neces- 
sary to  be  done.  So  that,  to  conclude,  I have  very  little  to  answer 
for  in  all  this  affair;  my  share  is  only  in  thinking  of  it  at  this 
juncture,  and  in  putting  it  into  the  common  light  for  the  peace 
and  prosperity  of  Europe.®® 


14 


Notes  for  Penn’s  “Essay  towards  the  Present 
and  Future  Peace  of  Europe” 


Note  1,  Page  6.  The  war  whose  horrors 
caused  Penn  to  propose  his  plan  for  the 
avoidance  of  future  wars,  was  fought  dur- 
ing the  years  1688  to  1697,  between  France 
on  one  side  and  England,  Holland,  Austria 
and  Spain  on  the  other.  It  was  the  third 
of  Louis  XIV’s  “Wars  of  Aggression,”  in 
which  his  “o’er-vaulting  ambition”  at- 
tempted to  substitute  the  Bourbon  for  the 
Habsburg  domination  of  Western  Europe. 
Like  most  wars,  it  was  marked  by  massacre, 
plunder  and  rapine,  pestilence  and  famine, 
and  it  was  notorious  especially  for  the  ter- 
rible ravaging  of  the  Rhine  Palatinate,  the 
“Belgium”  of  that  time.  Louis  XIV,  like 
Napoleon  and  Wilhelm,  failed  in  his  im- 
perial ambitions,  and,  like  them,  he  paved 
the  way  for  the  overthrow  of  autocratic 
rule  at  home,  and  for  attempts  so  to  or- 
ganize the  world  at  large  that  there  should 
be  no  further  appeal  to  the  God  of  Battles. 

Note  2,  Page  7.  The  Twentieth  Century, 
like  the  Seventeenth,  is  still  confronted  by 
the  problem  of  wars  of  aggression  and  de- 
fense. Like  Penn  in  his  time,  we  are 
seeking  a means  of  curbing  the  aggressive 
ambitions  of  a would-be  world-despot,  and 
of  defending  the  rights  of  nations.  Like  Penn, 
we  believe  that  a League  of  Nations  will 
prove  an  impassable  limit  to  imperialist 
ambitions,  and  an  impartial  judge  and  de- 
fender of  the  rights  of  nations,  small  or 
large,  backward  or  advanced. 

Note  3,  Page  7.  Penn’s  belief  in  democ- 
racy,— in  the  consent  of  the  governed  as 
the  only  proper  source  and  sanction  of 
government, — is  briefly  stated  here  in 
words.  A dozen  years  before,  he  had  em- 
bodied democracy  in  the  constitutions  which 
he  granted  to  the  Quaker  settlers  in  New 
Jersey  and  Pennsylvania;  and,  like  Im- 
manuel Kant  a century  later,  he  evidently 
believed  that  the  only  sure  foundation  of 
an  international,  as  well  as  of  a national, 
government  is  a league  of  self-governing 
democracies,  whose  peoples  make  their  will 
known  and  obeyed  by  their  official  repre- 
sentatives and  servants.  Hence  Penn,  like 
the  leading  statesmen  of  our  own  time,  was 
dedicated  to  the  task  of  making  the  world 
truly  “safe  for  democracy”  in  this  higher 
and  better  sense  of  the  phrase  than  is  im- 
plied in  the  mere  check  or  punishment  of 
military  autocracy. 


Note  4,  Page  7.  Penn’s  logical  sequence 
here  is  identical  with  ours  of  this  Twen- 
tieth Century:  Peace  is  procured  and  sus- 
tained by  justice;  justice  is  the  object  and 
result  of  government.  Hence,  to  secure 
international  peace,  we  must  achieve  inter- 
national justice;  and  to  secure  interna- 
tional justice  we  must  create  an  interna- 
tional government. 

Note  S,  Page  7.  The  Society  of  Nations 
is  now  no  longer  a dream,  or  an  academic 
theory,  as  it  was  to  so  large  an  extent  in 
Penn’s  time.  Less  than  a half-century  be- 
fore his  Essay  was  written,  the  Peace  of 
Westphalia  had  recognized  dimly  the  exist- 
ence of  a “family”  of  nations  in  Western 
Europe.  The  Hague  Conferences  of  1899 
and  1907  recognized  that  the  sovereign  na- 
tions of  both  the  Old  World  and  the  New 
were,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  members 
of  the  “family”;  and  they  began  the  task 
of  developing  the  “family”  into  a genuine 
society  by  creating  for  it  organs  and  func- 
tions of  government. 

Note  6,  Page  7.  Penn’s  ideal  of  an  in- 
ternational parliament  was  realized  in  part 
by  the  two  International  Peace  Conferences 
held  at  The  Hague  in  1899  and  1907.  These 
conferences  began  the  task  of  enacting  codes 
of  law  for  the  regulation  of  international 
relations  in  time  of  war  and  in  time  of 
peace.  Their  sessions  and  their  work  were 
interrupted  by  the  outbreak  of  the  Great 
War,  in  1914;  but  there  is  now  good  pros- 
pect that  their  sessions  will  be  resumed  and 
that  they  will  continue  the  great  and  neces- 
sary task  that  Penn  proposed  for  them, 
namely,  the  establishment  of  rules  of  jus- 
tice to  be  observed  by  sovereign  peoples  in 
their  relations  with  one  another  and  with 
the  rest  of  the  world. 

Note  7,  Page  8.  We  have  expanded 
Penn’s  plan  for  a “parliament  of  Europe” 
into  one  which  shall  include  the  sovereign 
peoples  of  all  the  world.  The  first  Hague 
Conference  of  1899  included  the  official 
representatives  of  twenty-six  states,  includ- 
ing two  in  the  New  World;  the  second 
Hague  Conference  of  1907  included  those 
of  forty-five  states,  only  one  of  the  twenty- 
one  American  Republics  failing  to  be  rep- 
resented. Penn,  himself  the  founder  of  an 
American  commonwealth,  could  not  foresee 


15 


the  marvelous  development  of  colonization 
and  self-government  which  the  next  two 
centuries  were  to  bring  forth,  and  he  would 
have  been  amazed  indeed  to  see  the  proces- 
sion of  national  delegates  from  nine-tenths, 
instead  of  one-fourth,  “of  the  known  world,” 
as  it  entered  the  Hall  of  the  Knights  in 
The  Hague  a dozen  years  ago.  Our  own 
eyes  are  hardly  accustomed  to  the  sight 
of  representatives  from  nearly  a score  of 
new  nationalities  taking  their  place  at  Paris 
beside  those  from  their  older  sisters. 

What  a change,  too,  has  been  wrought  by 
the  flight  of  time  in  the  map  of  Europe,  and  in 
the  ranking  of  its  nations ! England,  sixth 
on  Penn’s  list,  now  leads  them  all ; while 
beside  her  stands  her  giant  daughter  of 
the  West,  whose  cradle  Penn’s  own  hand 
was  rocking.  France,  purged  of  her  im- 
perialistic aggressiveness  and  wedded  to 
democracy,  has  far  outstripped  her  three 
rivals  of  that  time  (Spain,  Turkey  and 
Russia)  ; while  the  Habsburgs  and  the 
Hohenzollerns,  like  the  Romanoffs  and  the 
Bourbons,  have  fallen  into  innocuous  desue- 
tude. 

Note  8,  Page  8.  The  Hague  Conferences 
adopted  the  precedent  of  most  diplomatic 
bodies  and  gave  to  each  national  delega- 
tion,— regardless  of  the  nation’s  size  or 
importance  and  of  the  number  of  its  dele- 
gates,— only  one  vote.  Penn  proposed  that 
the  inequality  of  states  should  be  allowed 
for,  and  draws  up  a rough  table  of  votes 
to  be  assigned  to  each  of  his  fifteen  states. 

His  table  is  based  on  an  estimate  of 
national  wealth,  which  was  far  more  read- 
ily ascertained  in  his  time,  before  the  tak- 
ing of  national  censuses  began,  than  was 
population.  If  proportional  representation 
is  to  be  applied  to  the  international  parlia- 
ment, population  will  be  one  of  the  chief 
factors  recognized,  but  national  wealth  and 
other  factors  will  doubtless  be  taken  into 
consideration. 

The  American  Confederation  of  1781  to 
1789  adopted  the  diplomatic  precedent  of 
“one  state,  one  vote,”  and  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  1787  which  formed  the  Am- 
erican Union  nearly  went  to  pieces  upon 
the  rock  of  “equality  versus  proportional 
representation.”  Happily  a compromise 
(the  so-called  “Connecticut  Compromise”) 
was  adopted,  by  means  of  which  each  state 
secured  equality  of  representation  in  the 
Senate  and  proportional  representation  in 
the  House  of  Representatives.  It  may  well 
be  that  the  future  international  parliament 
will  develop,  by  virtue  of  some  “Inter- 
national Connecticut  Compromise,”  into  a 


two-chambered  legislature  in  which  both 
equality  and  proportional  representation 
may  be  recognized. 

Note  9,  Page  9.  It  is  of  interest  to  note 
that  Penn’s  plan  of  a three-fourths  vote 
was  adopted  by  the  American  Union  for 
the  ratification  of  amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution. Unanimity  was  the  rule  adopted 
by  the  Two  Hague  Conferences;  but  this 
caused  the  failure  of  progressive  measures 
which  received  the  vote  of  a large  majority 
of  the  delegations,  and  it  is  possible  that 
a three-fourths  vote  will  be  coupled  with 
the  proportional  representation  of  the  fu- 
ture. 

Note  10,  Page  9.  The  American  Con- 
federation adopted  this  plan,  which  is  the 
ordinary  plan  of  diplomatic  bodies,  of  de- 
ciding the  vote  of  a nation’s  delegation  by 
taking  a majority  vote  of  its  members.  In 
questions  of  importance,  of  course,  national 
delegations  receive  explicit  and  binding 
instructions  from  their  home-governments 
as  to  what  their  vote  shall  be.  The  Amer- 
ican Union  adopted  the  vote  par  tete,  in 
both  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives; and  if  the  international  parliament 
should  develop  some  time  in  the  future  a 
representation  of  peoples  rather  than  of 
governments,  it  will  doubtless  adopt  the  pre- 
cedent of  the  American  Congress  and  of 
most  other  genuinely  legislative  assemblies 
and  give  each  member  one  vote. 

Note  11,  Page  9.  The  difficulties  ex- 
perienced by  national  legislative  bodies, 
in  their  infancy,  in  securing  the  regular  and 
continuous  attendance  of  their  members, 
probably  caused  Penn  to  insert  this  detail. 
The  magnitude  of  the  stakes  involved  in 
international  conferences  in  our  own  time, 
however,  causes  all  states,  large  and  small, 
to  knock  imperatively  or  pleadingly  at  their 
doors;  hence  there  is  but  small  probability 
that  the  penalties  suggested  by  Penn  would 
ever  be  found  necessary. 

Note  12,  Page  9.  The  second  Hague 
Conference  met  eight  years  after  its  pre- 
decessor, and  it  was  planned  to  hold  the 
third  conference  at  about  the  same  interval 
of  time.  National  legislatures,  however, 
have  found  it  necessary  and  desirable  for 
many  reasons  to  hold  annual  sessions;  and 
the  large  and  pressing  tasks  of  the  League 
of  Nations  will  doubtless  require  the  more 
frequent  meeting  of  its  legislative  body  than 
once  in  eight  years.  Penn’s  proviso  that  no 
more  than  three  years  should  elapse  be- 


16 


tween  its  sessions  is  a wise  one,  both  for  the 
sake  of  its  own  prestige  and  for  the  welfare 
of  the  world. 

Note  13,  Page  9.  The  selection  of  The 
Hague  as  the  nneeting-place  of  the  great 
conferences  of  1899  and  1907  proved  to  be 
fortunate  for  many  reasons.  Beautiful, 
healthful,  commodious,  readily  accessible 
from  land  and  sea,  centrally  located,  the 
capital  of  a small  power,  inhabited  by  a 
people  famous  for  their  skill  in  foreign 
tongues,  with  an  inspiring  history  in  inter- 
national affairs,  strongly  patriotic,  yet  thor- 
oughly awake  to  the  need  of  international 
organization  and  co-operation,  and  with  the 
precedent  of  1899  and  1907  in  its  favor,— 
these  and  other  reasons  support  the  claims 
of  The  Hague  to  continue  as  “the  world- 
capital,”  “the  District  of  Columbia  of  the 
Nations.” 

Note  14,  Page  9.  French  has  entirely 
replaced  Latin,  since  Penn’s  time,  as  the 
language  of  diplomacy;  but  recent  events 
and  future  developments  may  cause  English 
to  become,  first  the  alternative,  and  finally 
the  successor,  of  French  as  the  language  of 
international  usage. 

Note  15,  Page  9.  Democracy  and  the 
nobility  of  service  have  taken  so  strong  a 
hold  upon  the  minds  of  men  and  nations 
in  our  time,  as  to  minimize  considerations 
of  precedence  and  to  make  the  plans  of 
Penn  for  observing  them  seem  quaint  and 
needless. 

Note  16,  Page  9.  It  is  characteristic  of 
an  English  statesman  that  he  should  pro- 
vide specifically  for  the  observance  of  par- 
liamentary usage  in  the  conduct  of  debates. 
How  necessary  such  a provision  may  be, 
even  in  our  own  time,  is  illustrated  by  the 
experiences  of  those  who  organized  the  first 
Hague  Conference  in  1899. 

Note  17,  Page  10.  The  secret  ballot, 
which  was  a novelty  of  so  much  interest 
to  Penn,  has  become  a commonplace  with 
us ; but  although  the  vote  in  the  inter- 
national parliament  should  some  time  be 
taken  by  individual  members  instead  of  by 
national  delegations,  it  would  even  then 
be  necessary,  according  to  our  modern  ideas, 
to  have  the  full  light  of  publicity  beat  upon 
the  vote  as  well  as  upon  the  debate  preced- 
ing it.  Open  diplomacy  and  democratic 
control  are  now  struggling  superbly  into  ex- 
istence. 


Note  18,  Page  10.  Penn’s  own  liberal 
mindedness  and  the  lessons  taught  by  Eng- 
land’s Seventeenth  Century  political  strug- 
gles are  both  reflected  in  the  provision  for 
freedom  of  speech.  As  a parliamentary 
privilege,  it  is  of  inestimable  value ; but 
transcending  even  this,  is  its  value  as  a bul- 
wark of  popular  right.  The  chief  danger 
to  it  will  come,  not  so  much  from  fear  or 
intimidation  from  an  outside  force,  as  in  the 
old  struggle  between  parliament  and  crown, 
but  from  undue  control  exerted  by  national 
forces  upon  individual  delegates.  Penn 
may  have  hinted  at  this  danger,  when  he 
suggests  that  each  sovereignty,  for  the 
sake  of  its  own  honor  and  safety,  will 
choose  its  delegates  from  among  the  wisest 
and  noblest  of  its  citizens. 

Note  19,  Page  10.  Penn’s  objection  to 
“neutralities”  in  debates  is  rather  vague ; 
but  the  “train  both  of  seen  and  unseen  in- 
conveniences,” at  which  he  hints,  has  been 
illustrated  to  some  extent  by  the  two  Hague 
Conferences,  in  which  a few  vastly  import- 
ant projects  were  neither  debated  nor  voted 
upon  by  a large  proportion  of  the  delegations 
present.  The  same  problem  has  arisen  in 
national  legislative  bodies,  and  has  usually 
been  solved,  as  in  the  American  House  of 
Representatives,  by  permitting  the  speaker  to 
count  as  present  even  those  members  who 
abstain  from  voting,  and  then  to  declare 
the  vote  on  the  majority  of  those  who  did 
vote.  It  will  doubtless  be  a long  time  be- 
fore the  international  parliament  could  thus 
count  a quorum  and  declare  a vote  as  bind- 
ing on  those  nations  whose  delegates  did  not 
participate  in  the  debate  or  the  vote ; but, 
on  the  other  hand,  those  issues  which  are 
of  truly  vital  and  pressing  importance  will 
not  fail  to  secure  the  eager  participation  of 
both  delegates  and  governments. 

Note  20,  Page  10.  The  great  progress 
of  publicity,  the  enterprise  of  modern 
journalists,  and  the  lavish  use  of  the  print- 
ing-press, have  made  the  precautions  sug- 
gested by  Penn  for  securing  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  parliament’s  documents  seem 
crude  and  unnecessary  in  our  time.  But  the 
thought  he  devoted  to  this  and  similar  mat- 
ters gives  evidence  that  he  would  be  an  in- 
telligent and  enthusiastic  promoter  of  our 
own  struggle  against  the  evils  of  subter- 
ranean and  devious  diplomacy. 

Note  21,  Page  10.  Penn’s  use  of  the 
term,  “private  embassies,”  would  appear 
to  indicate  his  meaning  that  the  ordinary 
diplomatic  channels  should  be  exhausted 


17 


before  disputes  among  two  or  more  coun- 
tries are  brought  before  the  international 
parliament  or  court.  But  he  had  already 
had  successful  experience  in  the  operation 
of  boards  of  arbitration  or  conciliation 
which  he  had  established  in  Pennsylvania 
for  the  settlement  of  differences  arising 
among  the  English,  Dutch,  Swedish,  and 
Indian  inhabitants  of  his  province,  and 
which  had  prevented  many  a dispute  from 
waxing  so  complicated  and  bitter  that  a 
court-trial,  with  its  expense  and  excitement, 
became  necessary  for  their  settlement.  It  is 
quite  possible,  therefore,  that  Penn  envis- 
aged, and  included  among  “private  embas- 
sies,” those  international  councils  of  concili- 
ation which  have  already  assuaged  so  many 
international  controversies,  without  the  ne- 
cessity of  submitting  them  to  the  interna- 
tional court,  and  which  are  being  developed 
by  our  own  international  statesmen  as  a 
most  helpful  organ  of  the  league  of  nations. 

Note  22,  Page  10.  Penn’s  plan  for  an 
international  court,  it  will  be  noted,  pro- 
vided that  the  same  assembly  should  serve 
as  the  organ  of  both  legislative  and  judicial 
functions.  This  is  in  line  with  the  pre- 
cedent of  early  times,  when  the  national 
assembly,  or  at  least  one  branch  of  it, 
like  the  boule  or  senate,  decided  cases  as 
well  as  passed  laws.  The  British  Parlia- 
ment, too,  with  its  process  of  impeachment 
and  the  appellate  jurisdiction  vested  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  gave  Penn  a nearer  pre- 
cedent for  his  proposal.  But  the  first  Hague 
Conference  took  the  great  step  of  confiding 
its  germ  of  international  jurisdiction  to  a 
body  separate  from  the  conference  itself. 
The  precedent  of  the  United  States,  as  of 
most  modern  governments,  was  the  basis 
and  sanction  of  the  step  taken  at  The 
Hague.  Whether  the  developed  interna- 
tional court,  which  is  to  be  one  of  the 
crowning  glories  of  the  new  league  of  na- 
tions, will  ever  follow  the  American  pre- 
cedent so  far  as  to  become,  not  only  sepa- 
rate from,  but  independent  of,  and  co-ordi- 
nate with,  the  international  legislature,  and 
even  to  become  endowed  with  the  faculty 
of  passing  upon  “the  constitutionality”  of 
international  legislation,  only  the  future  can 
reveal. 

The  chief  glory  of  Penn’s  plan  was,  of 
course,  the  provision,  in  any  form,  of  ju- 
dicial settlement  for  disputes  among  na- 
tions. As  opposed  to  the  martial  settlement 
of  such  disputes, — which  proved  no  ade- 
quate settlement  of  them  at  all, — this  feat- 
ure of  his  plan  was  rightly  considered  for 


generations  to  be  the  prophetic  one ; and 
although  martial  settlement  has  prevailed 
or  persisted  ever  since,  the  world  has  at 
last  seemingly  made  up  its  mind  that  ju- 
dicial settlement  shall  become  a reality, 
not  in  the  millennium,  but  in  our  own  time. 

Note  23,  Page  11.  The  problem  of  in- 
ternational sanctions  is  one  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult and  debateable  of  all  connected  with 
the  establishment  of  a league  of  nations. 
Penn  solved  it  by  declaring  for  the  enforce- 
ment, not  only  of  the  submission  of  disputes 
to  the  court,  but  also  of  the  court’s  award 
or  decision  itself.  His  statement  of  pre- 
cisely what  the  international  force  shall  be, 
leaves  much  to  be  desired  or  understood. 
It  is  simply  that  “all  the  other  sovereignties, 
united  as  one  strength,  shall  compel  the  sub- 
mission and  performance  of  the  sentence.” 

If  this  “one  strength”  refers  only  to 
armies  and  navies,  it  may  mean  either 
that  the  national  armaments  shall  be  pooled 
for  special  emergencies,  remaining  then  and 
afterwards  under  national  control ; or 
that  each  nation  shall  contribute  armaments 
to  a genuine  “international  police  force,” 
which  shall  act  solely  for  the  purposes,  and 
always  under  the  control,  of  the  league  of 
nations  itself.  Again,  the  phrase,  “united 
as  one  strength,”  may  mean  either  armies 
and  navies  alone ; or  the  varied  other 
forces, — diplomatic,  economic,  political  and 
moral, — of  civilized  states;  or  a combina- 
tion of  them  all. 

Note  24,  Page  11.  Penn’s  statement,  a 
little  later  in  his  “Essay,”  that  “the  strong- 
est and  richest  sovereignty  is  not  stronger 
and  richer  than  all  the  rest,”  would  indi- 
cate that  he  included  at  least  the  economic 
sanction  with  armed  force.  While  his  pro- 
vision that  “damages  should  be  awarded  to 
the  suffering  party,  and  charges  to  the  sov- 
ereignties that  obliged  their  submission,” 
might  even  imply  that  he  foresaw  the  pos- 
sibility of  the  league  of  nations  placing  its 
hand  upon  the  shoulders  of  those  individu- 
als within  a recalcitrant  nation  who  are 
really  responsible  for  the  nation’s  appeal  to 
arms, — the  kings,  the  kaisers,  and  their  ag- 
gressive tools  or  masters, — and  of  holding 
them  to  strict  accountability,  rather  than  re- 
sorting to  the  process  of  wholesale  slaughter 
or  starvation  of  guiltless  individuals,  com- 
batant and  non-combatant  alike. 

But  Penn’s  words  in  regard  to  this  dif- 
ficult and  complicated  problem  are  so  few 
and  meagre  that  it  is  impossible  to  tell  pre- 
cisely what  they  mean,  and  it  may  be  un- 


18 


wise  even  to  attempt  to  conjecture  a mean- 
ing for  them.  The  acts  and  fundamental 
theories  of  his  life  are  all  opposed  to  war 
between  nations;  he  advocated,  in  this 
“Essay”  and  elsewhere,  and  put  into  prac- 
tice in'  his  own  commonwealth,  a rejection 
of  the  use  of  armaments;  and  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  he  would  be  to-day  in  en- 
tire accord  with  those  statesmen  who  are 
striving  to  eliminate  armed  force  as  ap- 
plied to  nations,  and  to  organize  for  their 
guidance  and  control  the  other  and  better 
sanctions  of  civilized  men  and  the  modern 
society  of  nations.  He  would,  indeed,  have 
been  a foremost  leader  among  them  in  this 
great  task,  if  he  had  shared  with  them 
the  unprecedented  experience  of  the  last 
two  centuries  in  the  successful  application 
to  international  disputes  of  concerted  di- 
plomacy, economic  internationalism,  concil- 
iation, mediation,  arbitration,  judicial  pro- 
cess, democracy,  public  opinion  (national 
and  international,  enlightened,  aroused,  or- 
ganized and  concentrated),  and  a large 
and  growing  sense  of  moral  responsibility 
on  the  part  of  individuals  and  nations. 

Note  25,  Page  11.  Penn  regarded  it  as 
an  essential  factor  in  the  creation  and  suc- 
cessful operation  of  a league  of  nations  that 
the  armaments  of  each  nation  should  be  re- 
duced to  “only  a small  force,  such  as  it  is 
capable  or  accustomed  to  maintain.”  The 
founders  of  the  American  Union  were  also 
convinced  that  their  experiment  in  the  ju- 
dicial settlement  of  disputes  among  the 
states  would  be  a failure  unless  the  states 
themselves  surrendered  to  the  federal  gov- 
ernment the  exclusive  right  of  maintaining 
an  army  or  navy.  President  Wilson,  also, 
in  outlining  his  plan  for  the  league  of  na- 
tions has  declared  that  “the  question  of 
armaments,  whether  on  land  or  sea,  is  the 
most  immediately  and  intensely  practical 
question  connected  with  the  future  fortunes 
of  nations  and  mankind”;  and  the  fourth 
of  his  famous  Fourteen  Points  provides  for 
“the  giving  and  taking  of  adequate  guar- 
antees that  national  armaments  will  be  re- 
duced to  the  lowest  point  consistent  with 
domestic  safety.” 

Thus  the  leading  American  statesmen  of 
colonial,  revolutionary,  and  present-day 
times  have  recognized  as  the  sine  qua  non 
of  the  league  of  nations,  the  reduction  and 
limitation  of  armaments,  so  as  to  prevent 
the  incessant  competition  in  their  increase 
from  continuing  to  be  a fruitful  cause  of 
jealousy,  fear  and  war,  and  to  prevent  a 
continued  reliance  upon  them  as  the  only 
effective  means  of  defense  and  justice  from 


sterilizing  the  process  of  judicial  settle- 
ment established  by  the  league  of  nations. 

Note  26,  Page  12.  The  first  three  objec- 
tions to  a league  of  nations  which  Penn 
answers  appear  to  us  very  trivial ; but  they 
doubtless  had  a good  deal  of  force  in  the 
minds  of  his  contemporaries.  The  fourth 
objection,  however,  is  still  a cogent  one,  and 
all  the  more  prominent  and  forceful  be- 
cause of  the  great  development  in  the  senti- 
ment and  practice  of  nationality  and  na- 
tional unity  which  has  characterized  the 
last  two  centuries,  especially  the  Nineteenth. 
Penn’s  answers  to  it  are  still  the  main  argu- 
ments of  the  advocates  of  a league  of  na- 
tions; and  in  addition  to  the  appeal  which 
he  made  to  reason,  we  are  enabled  to  ap- 
peal to  the  argument  of  a rich  experience 
both  in  the  benefits  of  federation  or  co- 
operation in  national  and  international 
affairs,  and  in  the  evils  of  International  an- 
archy. Indeed,  the  necessity  of  developing 
some  degree  of  international  union  and  gov- 
ernment, stressed  for  us  as  it  is  by  both  rea- 
son and  experience,  causes  us  to  declare,  in 
the  words  of  that  other  great  Pennsylvanian, 
Benjamin  Franklin,  when  he  was  urging 
the  formation  of  the  American  Union,  that 
“we  must  all  hang  together,  or  assuredly 
we  shall  all  hang  separately”;  or  as  Penn 
even  more  quaintly  and  incisively  put  our 
present  problem:  the  great  Fish  must  be 
prevented  from  eating  up  the  little  ones. 

Note  27,  Page  14.  The  seven  benefits  of 
a league  of  nations  which  Penn  so  clearly 
expounds  are  all  of  them,  with  one  excep- 
tion, still  potent  with  us.  The  danger  of 
Turkish  conquest  or  invasions  of  Europe  has 
passed  in  our  time ; but  the  fears  of  Europe 
now  are  being  sharpened  by  a contempla- 
tion of  other  real  or  imaginary  perils  aris- 
ing on  its  Eastern  borders.  That  these 
perils,  or  the  fear  of  them,  can  be  assuaged 
also  by  a league  of  nations,  is  our  confident 
belief ; and,  far  more  than  the  mere  sense 
and  reality  of  security  afforded  by  it,  would 
come  a mutual  knowledge,  s)mipathy  and 
co-operation  among  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth. 

The  other  benefits  mentioned  by  Penn, 
namely,  the  prevention  of  human  slaughter 
and  human  misery;  the  restoration  of  the 
prestige  of  Christianity;  the  saving  of 
wealth  and  its  wider  employment  in  the 
promotion  of  human  welfare ; the  salvation 
of  towns,  cities  and  countries  from  the  de- 
vastations of  war;  the  great  increase  of 
trade,  travel,  intercourse,  friendship,  and 
emulation  in  the  best  things  of  civilized 


19 


life:  these  have  ail  been  written  large  in 
letters  of  blood  and  lire,  many  times  since 
the  wars  which  Penn  deplored,  and  on  an 
especially  large  and  terrible  scale  during 
the  past  four  years;  and  they  continue 
to  be  our  chief  reliance  in  the  appeal  which 
the  league  of  nations  makes  to  the  minds 
and  hearts  of  men. 

Note  28,  Page  14.  Could  Penn  have  fore- 
seen the  political  development  of  the  mighty 
union  of  American  commonwealths,  one  of 
which  he  founded,  he  would  doubtless  have 
been  delighted  to  include  it  with  the  Nether- 
lands, as  well  as  Switzerland,  the  British 
Empire,  and  sundry  other  lands,  to  enforce 
his  argument  from  successful  experience  in 
behalf  of  a league  of  nations.  That  he  laid 
stress  upon  the  Netherlands  is  one  illustra- 


tion among  many  of  the  ways  in  which  the 
world  has  been  inspired  and  benefitted  by 
that  marvellous  little  land  of  liberty,  learn- 
ing, industry,  and  Hugo  Grotius. 

, J^OTE  29,  Page  14.  Penn’s  graceful  allu- 
sion to  the  “Design”  of  Henry  IV,  which 
preceded  his  own  “Essay”  by  three-quarters 
of  a century,  is  evidence  of  his  modesty; 
and  the  use  which  he  makes  of  it  in  appeal- 
ing to  his  readers,  is  proof  of  his  wise 
diagnosis  of  the  prejudices  and  motives  of 
his  contemporaries. 

. In  conclusion,  the  whole  world  of  our  day 
wjll  do  well  indeed  to  share  Penn’s  devout 
desjre  that  the  plan  of  a league  of  nations 
shall  be  put  into  the  common  light  for  the 
promotion  of  the  peace  and  prosperity  of 
all  mankind. 


Hcitmts  Press 
Philadelphia 


20 


Date  Due 


